I'm in favor of MyFaces for Trinidad. I would like to see Trinidad as the basis for Tomahawk JSF 1.2.
However, if there is no interest in merging Tomahawk and Trinidad, then going with a TLP would be better. Right now, Tobago is in the state you described below -- You're either using Tobago (and no other component set), or you're using Tomahawk and other component sets. It's next to impossible to have oversight over both projects since Tobago is mutually-exclusive of other component sets. At one point, the Tobago people were interested in making Tobago more compatible with Tomahawk and other component sets, but discussion on how that would happen ever materialized beyond my initial questions. On 4/7/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1.. Thing to decide now is TLP or as subproject of MyFaces. Main thing is focus to decide on what to do : - People on MyFaces equally care about and work on Trinidad - People on Trinidad equally care about MyFaces MyFaces == the code base, not the TLP project. People working on Trinidad wouldn't necessarily be interested in working on the MyFaces code base. Giving oversight in an umbrella project will get harder and harder over time, which in the end does end up in a fragmented PMC. Which means that people on the PMC just have focus on eg MyFaces, tomahawk, Tobago or Trinidad. If you are a on the PMC you should care about all of these subprojects. In short : I favor TLP. Mvgr, Martin Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > on our march reports, Jukka was asking: > > <snip> > Things to do before graduation? > </snip> > > checking the checklist (briefly) it looks like we are "set" ... > > -M > > On 3/26/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 3/19/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Hello Martin, >> > >> > your email states that this group should at least manage to get the >> > release of the plugins out. I did. Currently this group is waiting for >> > an approval to release the CORE as well. >> >> was approved and already released :-) >> >> > >> > One item, we need to check is >> > >> > "Project ready to comply with ASF mirroring guidlines" >> > >> > I will look at MyFaces, how we do it there, shouldn't be that big deal. >> >> posted to /www/people.apache.org/dis/incubator, as suggested here >> >> > @GUMP: we use(d) continuum (was reseted currently) >> > that should be ok?! >> > >> > >> > What is your current thinking about this group? >> > Start a vote? Fix the missing items? Wait for approval for CORE ? >> >> So, what is the next step ? >> A vote here on this list ? >> >> I think, we also need to run a vote on the MyFaces PMC, to accept >> Trinidad as one of their subprojects. I'll do that vote as well, when >> time comes ;-) >> >> -Matthias >> >> >> > Thanks! >> > Matthias >> > >> > >> > On 2/10/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > In short : according to me they are.. Any feedback and additions >> appreciated.. On note : I like to >> > > see that at least the plugins get a release before we start a vote >> on dev (and I expressed below >> > > that you are targetting to have a release of core before leaving >> the incubator, although that could >> > > be a misunderstanding) >> > > >> > > If everyone agrees on dev, we start a vote on the incubator >> general list and after that on the >> > > MyFaces private list. Exit strategy probably needs to be discussed >> with the MyFaces crowd (like >> > > mailinglists) and they probably need to have votes on people on >> the trinidad ppmc list that are not >> > > yet on the MyFaces PMC (but that's up to the MyFaces PMC). I'll >> subscribe to the private myfaces >> > > list (in case you didn't know : I can as a member, which doesn't >> actually mean that I am on that PMC >> > > or have a binding vote there). >> > > >> > > >> > > The very long version : >> > > >> > > To determine if Trinidad is ready to leave the incubator I took >> > > >> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Exiting+the+Incubator >> and tried to >> > > answer all the questions. The first 3 on that page are actually >> the last ones, since I am treating >> > > them more as general conclusions. >> > > >> > > >> > > Legal >> > > >> > > * All code ASL'ed >> > > Looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ADFFACES-355 it >> is solved. Most important is that >> > > before the release everything is ok, so that check needs to be >> done before a release (eg by using >> > > RAT, mojo.codehaus.org is working on a maven2 plugin atm). >> > > >> > > * No non ASL or ASL compatbile dependencies in the code base >> > > Don't see any problems here (just checked the deps in the poms). >> > > >> > > * License grant complete >> > > Yep >> > > >> > > * CLAs on file. >> > > Yep. Even people who submitted patches were asked to file a CLA. >> > > >> > > * Check of project name for trademark issues >> > > Was tried, but since no one as access to the trademark database, >> it has hard to determine. >> > > >> > > >> > > Meritocracy / Community >> > > >> > > * Demonstrate an active and diverse development community >> > > The community is very active, people send in patches that get >> applied, user community is a bit >> > > behind, but that should grow ones Trinidad is released. >> > > >> > > * The project is not highly dependent on any single contributor >> (there's at least 3 legally >> > > independent committers and there is no single company or entity >> that is vital to the success of the >> > > project) >> > > >> > > The main contributors are all employed by Oracle (based on the >> *commits* since end of December). >> > > These are matzew, jwaldman and awiner. >> > > gcrawford - Oracle >> > > jfallows - Not oracle anymore >> > > mmarinschek - Irian (?) >> > > slessard - DMR Consulting Inc (?) >> > > baranda - ? >> > > Mentors / champions >> > > craigmcc - Sun >> > > mvdb - Ordina (I don't count myself as a committer though) >> > > mgeiler - ? (not oracle afaik) >> > > >> > > Looking at the above list, it could mean a worry, which will be a >> lot less worry looking at the rest >> > > of the exit list. >> > > >> > > * The above implies that new committers are admitted according to >> ASF practices >> > > >> > > Absolutely. There were 3 committers added during incubation, one >> not Oracle and 2 Oracle people. >> > > From my perspective all 3 deserved to be committer (with that >> amount of activity, people should be >> > > voted in as a committer to be honest), so no favours were made >> just because someone is from Oracle. >> > > Currently some other people are on the radar to become committer >> (non Oracle). >> > > >> > > * ASF style voting has been adopted and is standard practice >> > > >> > > In every way. >> > > >> > > * Demonstrate ability to tolerate and resolve conflict within the >> community. >> > > >> > > Haven't noted much conflicts to be honest, but I am happy with the >> oversight that is done and how >> > > commits that get feedback get resolved quickly. I use the word >> feedback, since I haven't noticed any >> > > strong -1 on a commit, since there is respect for each others >> knowledge, ego's don't tend to play >> > > up, which is a good thing. >> > > >> > > * Release plans are developed and excuted in public by the community. >> > > >> > > This is done and currently the project is making it easier to do >> release (cut down the manual work >> > > of the release). The project has some problems getting a release >> out the door, which is partially >> > > solved by adding another mentor, so the project actually can get 3 >> binding votes on a release. The >> > > goal is to release the plugins and the core before leaving >> incubation. Currently there is >> > > http://wiki.apache.org/myfaces/TrinidadReleaseProcedure on the >> wiki, which after the releases are >> > > done can be formalised as a permanent part of the website. >> > > >> > > * Engagement by the incubated community with the other ASF >> communities, particularly infrastructure@ >> > > (this reflects my personal bias that projects should pay an >> nfrastructure "tax"). >> > > >> > > This is the case, since there is my synergy with the MyFaces >> community and most people from Trinidad >> > > are also actively involved there. So infrastructure is less of a >> problem, since that is handled (in >> > > the future) by the MyFaces PMC. >> > > >> > > * Incubator PMC has voted for graduation >> > > * Destination PMC, or ASF Board for a TLP, has voted for final >> acceptance >> > > >> > > The goal of this mail to get those votes :) >> > > >> > > Alignment / Synergy >> > > >> > > * Use of other ASF subprojects >> > > >> > > Not specifically, since the goals is to be JSR compliant. >> > > >> > > * Develop synergistic relationship with other ASF subprojects >> > > >> > > MyFaces is the sponsoring PMC. >> > > >> > > Infrastructure >> > > >> > > * SVN module has been created >> > > >> > > Yep, but it will move to MyFaces. >> > > >> > > * Mailing list(s) have been created >> > > * Mailing lists are being archived >> > > >> > > Do we keep the trinidad lists ? >> > > >> > > * Issue tracker has been created >> > > * Project website has been created >> > > >> > > Yep. >> > > >> > > * Project ready to comply with ASF mirroring guidlines >> > > >> > > The maven plugins don't need a seperate download and are therefor >> mirrored to the maven >> > > repositories. The Trinidad core still needs a release and will >> setup a download page according to >> > > the mirroring guidelines. >> > > >> > > * Project is integrated with GUMP if appropriate >> > > >> > > It is appropiate, but no gump integration afaik (since I am on the >> Gump PMC, I like to see this >> > > happening). >> > > >> > > * Releases are PGP signed by a member of the community >> > > >> > > Yep. Key signing is part of the standard release process. >> > > >> > > * Developers tied into ASF PGP web of trust >> > > >> > > Don't have a clue. Everyone coming to Apachecon however can join >> the Key Signing session to be >> > > trusted even more :). >> > > >> > > Conclusions : >> > > >> > > * it is a worthy and healthy project >> > > >> > > It is definitely a worthy and healthy project. Even though there >> can be concerns about the number of >> > > Oracle people involved, I think they have proven that they treat >> this project as an Apache project >> > > and not as an Oracle project. I think a complement is even in >> order, since it could be very tempting >> > > to do it the wrong way. >> > > >> > > * it truly fits within the ASF framework >> > > +1 >> > > >> > > * it "gets" the Apache Way. >> > > >> > > It definitely gets the Apache Way. They are open for feedback, act >> promptly when something slipped >> > > through the cracks and they really *want* to do the right thing. I >> even never heard a complaint on >> > > having to do things the Apache way. >> > > >> > > Mvgr, >> > > Martin >> > > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Matthias Wessendorf >> > http://tinyurl.com/fmywh >> > >> > further stuff: >> > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf >> > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com >> > >> >> >> -- >> Matthias Wessendorf >> http://tinyurl.com/fmywh >> >> further stuff: >> blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf >> mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com >> > >
